Somewhat OT, but when I was in college I worked at the computer help desk. My all-time favorite complaint was the calls I would get asking for help to find the "any key". Remember way back with those dos based programs that would say,"press any key to continue" to get the text to scroll to the next page. I still laugh when I imagine people looking all over the keyboard for the anykey button.
Downtown condos and high rises in cities would be perfect for this setup. In Chicago where I live parking spots sell for 30,000-40,000 dollars each, well above the 25,000 dollar cost of this unit. As demand goes up for parking and space is always premium, this becomes a viable option for new developments.
The only thing that I can see beeing problematic is time of transit to get your car. Anyone who has ever lived in a high rise knows that having good elevators is key, otherwise your travel from 30th floor to the ground level might take 10 minutes itself. This system is similar to a high rises elevator system, it has to be fast and efficient to be tolerable. No one would want to wait in line during rush hour 15 minutes for your car to be retrieved.
Why should an ISP dictate what content their consumer can access? I don't like spam as much as the next person but blocking access to websites that the ISP's don't like is a bad idea. The problem comes when you try and define "bad" websites. Sooner or later something you like might like will get on the list. Imagine surf control software like work/school from your AOL provider...
Unless blocked sites were to be regulated by a non-commercial entity, it is inherintly biased.
Actually, the concern on the interference isn't on the pacemaker that is implanted. The reason why ICU and cardiac telemetry floors in hospitals have cell phone bans is that external EKG cardiac monitors placed on the patients have small transmitters that broadcast the information to monitoring stations in a central part of the ward. Patient's would never be in danger of dying if someone used a cell phone in the units but they might interfere with the wireless monitoring causing faulty transmission of these signals.
I think the real risk of the interference is low, but it would actually be funny if it looked like everyone on the floor flatlined at once, as someone walks by talking on their cell phone.
How does jurisdiction and internet law work? For example, spammers in other countries, e-mailing into the US, how do the US courts and hosting country's courts work out this issue? On the other hand, if someone in the US were to post something on a web host based in a country with limited speech laws that angered the local political party, would that person have to worry about being summoned by a foreign court?
I am glad to see that a company is actually trying to keep their costs low. It seems every year my cable goes up some ridiculous percentage, the most recent being a 16% raise for the new year.
Someone mentioned that the company was considering removing the disputed channels from the basic package, giving customers the option to purchase them for an extra fee. This would lower the price for people who don't really want the channels and give others who want them a real idea how much they are paying for them, a win-win for consumers IMO.
I have always wished that I could pick the channels that I really cared to use, while not having to pay for all the other channels I never watch. Something like a 30 channel package to be able to pick your favorite 30 channels would be great. Too bad everything nowadays is sold in bundles and special packages, not to mention that the basic packages have way too many worthless channels. Until then, I guess we all have to take the golf channel, soap network, etc. to have our comedy central, sci fi, etc. (apologies to anyone who likes the former channels, but i'm sure you can come up with your own example)
One of the reasons that I think there should be a little more regulation of the legal profession. Would we accept a 1% success rate from doctors doing heart surgery? Just because lawsuits aren't won doesn't mean money didn't change hands.
Some lawyers when they sue hospitals and doctors name every person that they can find in the medical record, even if they had nothing to do with the alleged outcome. For example, many consultants are used in complicated cases. If someone dies in post-operative from gross negligince of the surgeon (lets say wound infection from a sponge left in the body), the consultants that are involved in the post-op care, Internists, Endocrinologists, Pscychiatrists, etc, (all managing their area of expertise) are almost always named in the lawsuit mainly against the surgeon. Imagine yourself being named in a lawsuit for something your neighbor did just because you lived on the same street.
Many lawyers file lawsuits, naming huge lists of defandants without ever really reviewing the information and facts pertaining to the case. ATM there is no incentive to avoid this "shotgun" approach to naming those involved in the case. Most of the named defendants in the case are later dropped, usually leaving 1 or 2 doctors and usually the hospital, but the rest of the list has had to spend time and money to defend themselves, not to mention the fact that they have a lawsuit on the record.
In the end, we all pay these costs in one way or another. The law should be about changing the way things are done, not about big payoffs to individuals.
Good Samaritan laws are actually designed to protect a person providing assistance within thier realm of experience/training. You should be immune from a lawsuit from the person you are helping or the family if you stop to help.
There are some caveats to this however. For example you could be negligent if you try to provide services you are untrained to perform. Something like basic first aid anyone can do. If a internist stops at an accident and attempts something like a tracheotomy or thoracotomy on a patient (surgical procedures that they are not trained to do) and the person dies anyway, they are at risk.
IANAL but did have this topic explained in a medical legal class by one
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat OT, but when I was in college I worked at the computer help desk. My all-time favorite complaint was the calls I would get asking for help to find the "any key". Remember way back with those dos based programs that would say,"press any key to continue" to get the text to scroll to the next page. I still laugh when I imagine people looking all over the keyboard for the anykey button.
This setup may be big, but mine goes to eleven...
The only thing that I can see beeing problematic is time of transit to get your car. Anyone who has ever lived in a high rise knows that having good elevators is key, otherwise your travel from 30th floor to the ground level might take 10 minutes itself. This system is similar to a high rises elevator system, it has to be fast and efficient to be tolerable. No one would want to wait in line during rush hour 15 minutes for your car to be retrieved.
When companies like Ideaflood are formed that can be described as "Intellectual Property holding companies". Is it me or does that just sound wrong?
Unless blocked sites were to be regulated by a non-commercial entity, it is inherintly biased.
I think the real risk of the interference is low, but it would actually be funny if it looked like everyone on the floor flatlined at once, as someone walks by talking on their cell phone.
How does jurisdiction and internet law work? For example, spammers in other countries, e-mailing into the US, how do the US courts and hosting country's courts work out this issue? On the other hand, if someone in the US were to post something on a web host based in a country with limited speech laws that angered the local political party, would that person have to worry about being summoned by a foreign court?
Someone mentioned that the company was considering removing the disputed channels from the basic package, giving customers the option to purchase them for an extra fee. This would lower the price for people who don't really want the channels and give others who want them a real idea how much they are paying for them, a win-win for consumers IMO.
I have always wished that I could pick the channels that I really cared to use, while not having to pay for all the other channels I never watch. Something like a 30 channel package to be able to pick your favorite 30 channels would be great. Too bad everything nowadays is sold in bundles and special packages, not to mention that the basic packages have way too many worthless channels. Until then, I guess we all have to take the golf channel, soap network, etc. to have our comedy central, sci fi, etc. (apologies to anyone who likes the former channels, but i'm sure you can come up with your own example)
One of the reasons that I think there should be a little more regulation of the legal profession. Would we accept a 1% success rate from doctors doing heart surgery? Just because lawsuits aren't won doesn't mean money didn't change hands.
Some lawyers when they sue hospitals and doctors name every person that they can find in the medical record, even if they had nothing to do with the alleged outcome. For example, many consultants are used in complicated cases. If someone dies in post-operative from gross negligince of the surgeon (lets say wound infection from a sponge left in the body), the consultants that are involved in the post-op care, Internists, Endocrinologists, Pscychiatrists, etc, (all managing their area of expertise) are almost always named in the lawsuit mainly against the surgeon. Imagine yourself being named in a lawsuit for something your neighbor did just because you lived on the same street.
Many lawyers file lawsuits, naming huge lists of defandants without ever really reviewing the information and facts pertaining to the case. ATM there is no incentive to avoid this "shotgun" approach to naming those involved in the case. Most of the named defendants in the case are later dropped, usually leaving 1 or 2 doctors and usually the hospital, but the rest of the list has had to spend time and money to defend themselves, not to mention the fact that they have a lawsuit on the record.
In the end, we all pay these costs in one way or another. The law should be about changing the way things are done, not about big payoffs to individuals.
Good Samaritan laws are actually designed to protect a person providing assistance within thier realm of experience/training. You should be immune from a lawsuit from the person you are helping or the family if you stop to help. There are some caveats to this however. For example you could be negligent if you try to provide services you are untrained to perform. Something like basic first aid anyone can do. If a internist stops at an accident and attempts something like a tracheotomy or thoracotomy on a patient (surgical procedures that they are not trained to do) and the person dies anyway, they are at risk. IANAL but did have this topic explained in a medical legal class by one